International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Sat, Apr 20, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 11, Issue 11 (12-2013)
IJRM 2013, 11(11): 899-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Chaparian A, Aghabagheri M. Fetal radiation doses and subsequent risks from X-ray examinations: Should we be concerned?. IJRM 2013; 11 (11) :899-0
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-363-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-363-en.html
1- Department of Medical Physic, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran , ali_chaparian@yahoo.com
2- Department of English Language, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Department of English Language, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Abstract: (2575 Views)
Background: Pregnant women are sometimes exposed to ionizing radiation in radiology examinations for various reasons. In such cases, the radiation dose to the conceptus and subsequent risks should be estimated.
Objective: The purpose of this study was the calculation and presentation of fetal dose and subsequent risks resulted from different X-ray examinations.
Materials and Methods: An analytical simulation study was conducted and six common radiographies in different views and three types of special examinations were evaluated. The entrance skin exposure (ESE) was measured using a solid-state dosimeter. A Monte Carlo program was used in order to simulate different views of X-ray examinations and calculate the radiation doses received by the conceptus for every view of each examination. Then the risk of childhood cancer and small head size were calculated for different radiographies.
Results: The fetal doses and consequence risks of the small head size and childhood cancer for the radiographs of chest, skull, and sinuses were negligible but the risks of childhood cancer and small head size due to radiographies of abdomen, lumbar spine, and pelvis areas were ponderable.
Conclusion: Results of this study can be used for the pregnant women radiographies management.
Objective: The purpose of this study was the calculation and presentation of fetal dose and subsequent risks resulted from different X-ray examinations.
Materials and Methods: An analytical simulation study was conducted and six common radiographies in different views and three types of special examinations were evaluated. The entrance skin exposure (ESE) was measured using a solid-state dosimeter. A Monte Carlo program was used in order to simulate different views of X-ray examinations and calculate the radiation doses received by the conceptus for every view of each examination. Then the risk of childhood cancer and small head size were calculated for different radiographies.
Results: The fetal doses and consequence risks of the small head size and childhood cancer for the radiographs of chest, skull, and sinuses were negligible but the risks of childhood cancer and small head size due to radiographies of abdomen, lumbar spine, and pelvis areas were ponderable.
Conclusion: Results of this study can be used for the pregnant women radiographies management.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Mettler Jr FA, Brent RL, Streffer C, Wagner L. Pregnancy and medical radiation. Annals of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Elsevier Science, New York; 2000.
2. Wagner LK, Lester RG, Saldana LR. Exposure of the pregnant patient to diagnostic radiations: a guide to medical management. Medical Physics Publishing, 1997.
3. Karam PA. Determining and Reporting Fetal Radiation Exposure from Diagnostic Rgdiation. Health Phys 2000; 79: S85-S90. [DOI:10.1097/00004032-200011001-00011]
4. Wagner L, Applegate K. ACR practice guideline for imaging pregnant or potentially pregnant adolescents and women with ionizing radiation. American College of Radiology Practice Guideline; 2011.
5. Linet MS, Kim K, Rajaraman P. Children's exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39: 4-26. [DOI:10.1007/s00247-008-1026-3]
6. Tapiovaara M, Siiskonen T. A PC based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations. Finish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki) Report STUK A 139; 2008.
7. Eckerman K, Cristy M, Ryman J. The ORNL mathematical phantom series. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 1996. " Available at: homer. ornl. gov/vlab/mird2. pdf.
8. Frank ED, Long BW, Smith BJ. Merrill's atlas of radiographic positioning & procedures. St Louis, MO: Mosby/Elsevier, 2007.
9. Helmrot E, Pettersson H, Sandborg M, Altén JN. Estimation of dose to the unborn child at diagnostic X-ray examinations based on data registered in RIS/PACS. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 205-209. [DOI:10.1007/s00330-006-0286-2]
10. Valentin J. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection: ICRP publication 103; 2007: 1-332.
11. Osei E, Faulkner K. Fetal doses from radiological examinations. Br J Radiol 1999; 72: 773-780. [DOI:10.1259/bjr.72.860.10624343]
12. Shaw P, Duncan A, Vouyouka A, Ozsvath K. Radiation exposure and pregnancy. J Vasc Surg 2011; 53: 28-34. [DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.05.140]
13. McCollough CH, Schueler BA, Atwell TD, Braun NN, Regner DM, Brown DL, et al. Radiation Exposure and Pregnancy: When Should We Be Concerned? Radiographics 2007; 27: 909-917. [DOI:10.1148/rg.274065149]
14. Chaparian A, Tavakoli I, Karimi V. Organ doses, effective dose, and radiation risk assessment in radiography of pediatric paranasal sinuses (Waters view). Asian Biomed 2013; 7: 695-698.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
